DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/2/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Tamura (JP H10-231182) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Maroni et al. (DE 10 2012 216214).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “the inner portion defines a central opening extending along a longitudinal direction of the shank”. This limitation as recited is not fully supported by the specification as originally filed. Paragraph [0052] is relied upon for support of this amendment. However, the paragraph specifies that the opening is “a result of a rolled inner section formed by rolling a material of the inner section”. The claim as recited does not include this additional limitation, nor does it include the implied structure which results from the opening being a result of a rolled material (e.g., the opening would be expected to have a generally circular cross section, and the opening would be expected to extend substantially along the entire length of the shank, or taper in one direction, due to rolling). Dependent claims 2-10 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (JP H10-231182) in view of Maroni et al. (DE 10 2012 216214).
Regarding claim 1, Tamura teaches a ceramic fastener (¶¶ 1, 9) comprising a bolt head and a threaded portion (¶ 38). The fastener comprises a main body formed of inorganic long fibers as reinforcing material and a ceramic matrix (¶ 38), corresponding to the claimed inner portion. A plurality of stacked alignment layers covers the surface of the main body (¶ 40), and correspond to the claimed outer portion. The inorganic long fibers may be made of alumina (¶ 27), and the ceramic matrix is an oxide comprising alumina, silica, strontium oxide, and/or barium oxide (¶ 31). The alignment layers similarly comprise inorganic long fibers (¶ 46) and are impregnated with the same ceramic matrix (see ¶ 56).
Tamura does not expressly disclose the inner portion defines a central opening extending along a longitudinal direction of the shank. Maroni teaches a ceramic fastener (¶ 13) having a hollow bore at one end (¶ 6) and formed coaxially or concentrically on the fastener (¶ 7). Accordingly, the location of such a bore would correspond to an inner portion of a fastener. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to include a hollow bore as taught by Maroni in the fastener of Tamura because such a bore can serve as an additional fastening element (¶¶ 29-30).
Regarding claim 2, the stacked alignment layers extend circumferentially around the main body (¶ 47).
Regarding claim 3, because there is a plurality of stacked alignment layers (¶ 40), the innermost of these could be considered part of the claimed “inner portion”. Tamura teaches these alignment layers are wound spirally (¶ 46).
Regarding claim 5, the threaded portion of Tamura is cylindrical (see Fig. 1) and therefore has a rolled shape.
Regarding claim 6, for the plurality of stacked alignment layers (¶ 40), the innermost of these could be considered part of the claimed “inner portion”. Tamura teaches these alignment layers are wound spirally (¶ 46) with an angle offset of more than 0° and at most 60° (¶ 43). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 7, Tamura teaches a composite nut having a similar construction as the fastener for engaging the fastener (¶¶ 49, 82).
Regarding claim 8, the outermost layer of the stacked alignment layer can be considered the claimed “outer portion” and thus represents one continuous piece.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (JP H10-231182) in view of Maroni et al. (DE 10 2012 216214), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Peters et al. (US 2016/0169261).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Modified Tamura does not expressly teach the bolt head comprises a tapered portion, but teaches the body of the fastener includes a screw thread (¶ 17). Peters teaches a ceramic fastener having a head which flares outward from the base (¶ 23). Peters also teaches the other end of the fastener may similarly flare outwards (¶ 23). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the fastener of Modified Tamura with a tapered head, as taught by Peters, because the prior art establishes this is a known configuration for a fastener and it is readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that a tapered head permits a fastener to sit flush with the material it is fastened into, such that parts of the fastener are not sticking out from the material.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Modified Tamura does not expressly disclose an intermediary collar disposed on the shank and a nut for engaging the intermediary collar. Peters teaches a ceramic fastener assembly (¶ 21) having threads which are separate from the fastener and are attachable thereto (¶ 23). These threads correspond to the claimed intermediary collar. The threads in Peters are configured to engage with a nut (¶ 24). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to further include an intermediary collar to the ceramic composite fastener of Modified Tamura, as taught by Peters, because the assembly of Peters is a known arrangement in the prior art which permits the fastener to have features which carry the torque of tightening and loosening (¶ 23), as well as creating self-locking features (¶ 24), or having crack resistant properties (¶ 32).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (JP H10-231182) in view of Maroni et al. (DE 10 2012 216214), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Dunn (US 5,090,857).
Regarding claims 9-10, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Modified Tamura does not expressly teach the intermediary collar disposed on the shank and a nut for engaging the intermediary collar. Dunn teaches a ceramic composite fastener having an externally threaded split collar secured to the shank of the fastener (col. 2, lines 38-43). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fastener of Modified Tamura to have an externally threaded split collar because the assembly of a split collar for the fastener permits tension loads to be applied to the fastener without damaging the ceramic (col. 2, lines 9-35). As the fastener of Modified Tamura includes a ceramic composite nut to engage with the threads of the fastener, the combination of Modified Tamura with Dunn would suggest a nut engaging with the threads of the intermediary collar.
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (JP H10-231182) in view of Maroni et al. (DE 10 2012 216214) and Peters et al. (US 2016/0169261), as applied to claim 9, further in view of Dunn (US 5,090,857).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 9 have been addressed above. Modified Tamura does not expressly teach the intermediary collar is a split ring threaded sleeve. Dunn teaches a ceramic composite fastener having an externally threaded split collar secured to the shank of the fastener (col. 2, lines 38-43). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the threads of Modified Tamura to have a split collar because the assembly of a split collar for the fastener permits tension loads to be applied to the fastener without damaging the ceramic (see Dunn col. 2, lines 9-35).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dunn (US 5090857) and Drexler (US 2016/0356299) disclose ceramic fastener or fastener assemblies having an longitudinal opening, but the articles of Dunn and Drexler do not have the claimed structural features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights